Caesar's Messiah

[Capstone]

Too bad Notre Dame didn't muster a comeback against those Alabaman heretics the other night. That I might have actually bought as a freakin' miracle!

 

[turzovka]

You left out the grilled cheese sandwich.

I also left out telling you how much I truly pity you.

You see, the grilled cheese sandwich is something the devil prepared for fools (like you?). In that way, you would be dumb enough to equate true miracles with that silly episode. And in your own small mind try to pretend they are all on that level.

Hence, my pity.

 

[Capstone]

I also left out telling you how much I truly pity you.

Believe me, the feeling is mutual.

It must be terribly depressing to be so hungry for affirmation from your invisible buddy that you're forced to hold sacred so many silly superstitions.

 

[turzovka]

I also left out telling you how much I truly pity you.

Believe me, the feeling is mutual.

It must be terribly depressing to be so hungry for affirmation from your invisible buddy that you're forced to hold sacred so many silly superstitions.

I provided you evidence that is anything but invisible. But you are so frightened by your own mortality and lack of obedience that you have pyschologically blocked out any evidence that tells you you are wrong.

Instead you appear to play mind games with yourself (and come up with cockamamie stories about Roman inventions) and also continuously search for mutual company who mock God and think only for the moment. Also, they try to reassure themselves that in case they are wrong they are not such bad people after all, we have nothing to worry about.

Yes, you do. So I will do the worrying and praying for you.

 

[peach174]

I also left out telling you how much I truly pity you.

Believe me, the feeling is mutual.

It must be terribly depressing to be so hungry for affirmation from your invisible buddy that you're forced to hold sacred so many silly superstitions.

We who believe do not need affirmation. We know that he exists, the minute that we accept him as our lord and savior.
You are the one looking for affirmation, that he does not exist.

 

[Capstone]

I provided you evidence that is anything but invisible. But you are so frightened by your own mortality and lack of obedience that you have pyschologically blocked out any evidence that tells you you are wrong. [...]

Hey, I'm not alone in casting the stink-eye on your so-called "evidence" of miracles. You can't even convince a significant portion of your fellow believers in Christ (Protestant though they may be).

But, holy shit, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! For centuries the Church rejected any empirical evidence that contradicted its dearly-held fairy tales and significantly retarded science and philosophy for more than a thousand years as a result. The blockade in the minds of many believers today still transcends the psychological and spills into the practical aspects of their day-to-day lives.

[...] Instead you appear to play mind games with yourself (and come up with cockamamie stories about Roman inventions) and alsed continuously search for mutual company who mock God and think only for the moment. Also, they try to reassure themselves that in case they are wrong they are not such bad people after all, we have nothing to worry about.

I have no need for such reassurance, T; because, in my view, even if your God exists and plans to condemn me for my so-called "disobedience", the condemnation would be more palatable by far than the notion of spending the remainder of eternity in the presence of the God described in the Bible. Damn the consequences, I want no part of any religion that would have such a MONSTER as an object of praise and worship.

So, save your worries and your prayers. On some level, I have to admit: I actually hope your god exists, just so I can have the final pleasure of rejecting "HIM" to his goddamned face.

 

[turzovka]

I provided you evidence that is anything but invisible. But you are so frightened by your own mortality and lack of obedience that you have pyschologically blocked out any evidence that tells you you are wrong. [...]

Hey, I'm not alone in casting the stink-eye on your so-called "evidence" of miracles. You can't even convince a significant portion of your fellow believers in Christ (Protestant though they may be).

But, holy shit, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! For centuries the Church rejected any empirical evidence that contradicted its dearly-held fairy tales and significantly retarded science and philosophy for more than a thousand years as a result. The blockade in the minds of many believers today still transcends the psychological and spills into the practical aspects of their day-to-day lives.

[...] Instead you appear to play mind games with yourself (and come up with cockamamie stories about Roman inventions) and alsed continuously search for mutual company who mock God and think only for the moment. Also, they try to reassure themselves that in case they are wrong they are not such bad people after all, we have nothing to worry about.

I have no need for such reassurance, T; because, in my view, even if your God exists and plans to condemn me for my so-called "disobedience", the condemnation would be more palatable by far than the notion of spending the remainder of eternity in the presence of the God described in the Bible. Damn the consequences, I want no part of any religion that would have such a MONSTER as an object of praise and worship.

So, save your worries and your prayers. On some level, I have to admit: I actually hope your god exists, just so I can have the final pleasure of rejecting "HIM" to his goddamned face.

So that is why you are here. Not to learn anything or ask questions, but to mock believers because it provides you with some sordid pleasure or satisfaction? Well, so much for small measures ---- some people do not ask for much.

Spare me the science attacks, that is as tiresome as it gets. The Catholic Church advanced science and learning and everything related far, far more than all its barbaric secular counterparts for more centuries than one can remember. But if the Church erred once or twice, well leave it to the haters of God to use that as evidence we were always against science. It’s a joke and you know it.

And you appear so very much angry with God and those who witness for him that there is probably nothing we can say to change your mind. You admit you do not know God, you admit that no evidence exists for Him that you will accept, but just the same you admit how much you despise Him and those who love Him. You in your inexplicable ways insist on spending your precious time and so few days here on earth being angry and berating those who really have nothing to do with your way of life. I imagine you probably go to PETA sites just to tell those folks how much you hate animals because your mission is to make others unhappy?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I assume then that these Romans somehow invented the miracle at Fatima where 70,000 people witnessed the sun dance and charge the earth, predicted 90 days in advance by three young children?

No. That was the miracle of staring at the sun for prolonged periods of time.

I assume they somehow staged the Virgin Mary on top of a Coptic cathedral in Zeitoun, Egypt where more than a quarter of a million Egyptians saw her for themselves over the course of about 20 evenings in the summer of 1968?

Maybe I'm just a Godless Heathen (actually, I do believe in God), but I've never taken mass Marion apparition claims very seriously.

I assume they arranged for St. Anthony of Padua when his body was exhumed hundreds of years later for everything to be disintegrated except for his tongue which remained incorruptible, not to mention scores of other saints whose bodies lay incorruptible?

It was thirty years, not hundreds of years, but let's not let factual information get in the way of a good miracle story. I'm not saying something unusual or profound didn't happen, but in this single case where thirty years gets reported as hundreds of years, while you may say that is an insignificant slip-up, I see as an illuminating example of how easily stories get distorted into more than they are.

I assume they worked on St. Padre Pio’s hands and feet every day or week to keep the ruse going about the bleeding stigmata he had to deal with every day of his life.

Please. There is plenty of controversy surrounding Pio's claims. But let's not include the accounts of doctors that refute the claims. No, let's only include those that support it. Typical.

I suppose your Romans were busy assembling statues of Jesus and Mary that kept weeping human tears or tears of blood which no one can explain to this day?

Oh, jolly good. Weeping statues. Now we're really on a roll. It is no surprise that Marian apparitions tend to coincide with cultures that believe in them.

And those exorcisms. How on earth did they get the young child to levitate or to speak Latin, or to tell witnesses in the room things of their past the child could never have known?

Levitation? Really? Show me the evidence that a child levitated and spoke Latin. I'm sorry, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you believe stories of weeping statues and that St Anthony's corpse was exhumed hundreds of years after his death, then I am compelled to question your veracity. Spirit possession is a belief that has been a part of virtually every religion since Early Judaism and Zoroastrianism. Psychotic episodes easily explain most of what are claimed to be possessions. If one is predisposed to believing in miracles then one will make the accompanying conclusions.

I once belonged to an Evangelical church when I was in high school. I went on a winter retreat to the mountains one year. On one particular night, during an evening prayer session, a girl went into seeming convulsions and began speaking in a strange voice. She also lashed out violently. I knew the girl very well. The girl was pulled away and all the young men and women were instructed to go to our sleeping areas and asked to pray, which we did. We were told that the pastors were going to deal with it, presuming it was some kind of demonic possession. About an hour later we were told that the pastors were able to expel the demon and the girl was calm and behaving like herself again. The next morning, of course, she was the center of attention, and claimed that she had gone blank during that period and could only recall hearing constant screaming. I, and everybody else there, wanted with all of our hearts to believe that she had been possessed by a demon and that the pastors, with the aid of God, had triumphed over evil.

A few years later, I ran into this girl, since we lived in the same town. I hadn't seen her since that period of time. We got some coffee and talked for a while. We had been close enough in the past that I felt comfortable approaching her about that night. She confessed to me that she had acted out the whole thing. She was also very ashamed of it and had been carrying a lot of guilt ever since then. She also had never told anybody at the church about it.

This is not the only experience I have had with how the human psyche projects it's desired experiences onto what they claim to have seen, but it is the most profound. Here was a group of about 50 individuals, and all of us were certain that we were witnessing something supernatural, and it was all an act. This one 16-year-old girl, craving attention, contorted her body and made some funny sounds and convinced a bunch of people that she had been possessed. Religious hysteria is probably more amazing to me than the "miracles" that come out of it.

In summation. I believe in God. It's the people who are charlatans.

 

[turzovka]

Thanks for taking the time jimjam. I did not even read all you wrote, yet.

Not sure when I will respond, but I will. I do owe my employer some of my time.

 

[Capstone]

So that is why you are here. Not to learn anything or ask questions, but to mock believers because it provides you with some sordid pleasure or satisfaction? ...

Truth be told: I get very little pleasure from dealing with brainwashed people, perceived mockery notwithstanding.

Contrary to your insinuation, I really am "here" (in a broader sense than I think you intended) to learn about and question as many aspects of reality as I perceive it. I've done my time in the Faith (23 years) and the performance of my due diligence has led me to the place you've found me today. Don't assume for a second that my attitude towards Christianity has its basis in anything other than a rigorous examination that had its start on the inside. I've cried out to your god with the sincerity of an adolescent believer ...as well as with the disquieting fear of a young adult facing the prospect of eternal torment for the doubts over which I had no control.

There's just never been anything there for me; but that's not what has drawn me to attack Christianity.

More on that in a sec...

Spare me the science attacks, that is as tiresome as it gets. The Catholic Church advanced science and learning and everything related far, far more than all its barbaric secular counterparts for more centuries than one can remember. But if the Church erred once or twice, well leave it to the haters of God to use that as evidence we were always against science. It’s a joke and you know it.

It's good to see "the science attacks" have become so commonplace as to evoke such tiresome feelings from people like you -- there was a time in which attacking the Church would have resulted in a torturous death, after all -- but the charge that secular barbarians failed to further science is not quite analogous to the overt suppression of any enquiry (scientific, philosophical, or otherwise) that might have called into question the authority of the Church or the veracity of any of its teachings.

[...] And you appear so very much angry with God and those who witness for him that there is probably nothing we can say to change your mind. ...

True.

[...] You admit you do not know God, you admit that no evidence exists for Him that you will accept, but just the same you admit how much you despise Him and those who love Him. [...][E.A.]

Not quite true. Along with admitting to the hope that your god exists, so I can reject "HIM" to his face prior to being banished to the outer darkness, the pit, the lake, or whatever (depending on one's view of the afterlife), comes the implied concession of a potential scenario in which I'd recognize "HIS" existence.

But what I despise, apart from the god of the Bible (if and only if "HE" exists), is any organized corpus of beliefs based on placing such a hypothetical being on a pedestal.

Yes, it's possible to despise the doctrine without despising the indoctrinated!

[...] You in your inexplicable ways insist on spending your precious time and so few days here on earth being angry and berating those who really have nothing to do with your way of life. ...

Problem is: 'Christian values' (and I don't mean the term in a positive way) have so inundated the society and political landscape in which I live ...they're barely noticeable as the root of many of my country's problems. In other words, the agendas carried forward on the backs of the flock (over the last 50 or so years in particular) have made it my business as an informed adult to denounce the Faith at large at every opportunity.

Aiming at the foundation of the house of cards via the study and explication of Christianity's fraudulent origin ...just seems the most efficient way to get it to tumble.

 

[retro]

Very interesting ..

It seems the search for 'truth' is never ending - and probably unobtainable.

Here's an excellent study of the origins of Islam by historian Tom Holland.

He found there's little evidence to support that 'religion' either.



Peace.

 

[CrackedSkull]

[...] How does Josephus know what a jesus looked like when he was not born until 3 to 4 years after the death of this jesus.

Josephus wrote of many men whose lives (and deaths) preceded his birth. That's what historians do, CS.

No kidding...............then show me where Josephus wrote what a frigging jesus looked like when jesus was not even around during Josephus time.

 

[turzovka]

Quote:
I assume then that these Romans somehow invented the miracle at Fatima where 70,000 people witnessed the sun dance and charge the earth, predicted 90 days in advance by three young children?

No. That was the miracle of staring at the sun for prolonged periods of time.

This is hardly a scholarly or researched answer. The facts of this event are legion. The newspaper accounts from a Marxist anti-clerical Lisbon newspaper is hardly the source that would lie to make themselves look the hoodwinked party.

You want to read one testimony from a scientis present there? Here it is. It is clinical and not from some predisposed devotee. .

Link >> Essentials: The Facts: The Miracle of the Sun


Quote:
I assume they somehow staged the Virgin Mary on top of a Coptic cathedral in Zeitoun, Egypt where more than a quarter of a million Egyptians saw her for themselves over the course of about 20 evenings in the summer of 1968?

Maybe I'm just a Godless Heathen (actually, I do believe in God), but I've never taken mass Marion apparition claims very seriously.

Well the New York Times did. They ran two lengthy articles on this phenomon in May and August of 1968. 200,000 people don’t all claim to see the same thing on many different nights no less.


Quote:
I assume they arranged for St. Anthony of Padua when his body was exhumed hundreds of years later for everything to be disintegrated except for his tongue which remained incorruptible, not to mention scores of other saints whose bodies lay incorruptible?

It was thirty years, not hundreds of years, but let's not let factual information get in the way of a good miracle story. I'm not saying something unusual or profound didn't happen, but in this single case where thirty years gets reported as hundreds of years, while you may say that is an insignificant slip-up, I see as an illuminating example of how easily stories get distorted into more than they are.

Let’s not let that detail confound anyone. I did not bother looking up the years and just guessed from memory, but I give you real credit for doing so yourself. There are so many incorruptible accounts of saints that I did not see any reason to spend a lot of time detailing them all. Would it matter if I did?


Quote:
I assume they worked on St. Padre Pio’s hands and feet every day or week to keep the ruse going about the bleeding stigmata he had to deal with every day of his life.

Please. There is plenty of controversy surrounding Pio's claims. But let's not include the accounts of doctors that refute the claims. No, let's only include those that support it. Typical.

There are skeptics for all claims of the supernatural. So? In almost all cases their alternative suggestions as to what may have occurred are hyper-improbable. Padre Pio has a list hundreds of names long of miracles that affected individuals including reading their hearts in confession, being present two places at the same time, countless divine healings and a stigmata which he bore for 50 years. The stigmata only stopped within weeks of his death and when he died there were no signs of any scars whatsoever. It is unthinkable a man as holy as this man would lie and deceive the people and his God.


Quote:
I suppose your Romans were busy assembling statues of Jesus and Mary that kept weeping human tears or tears of blood which no one can explain to this day?

Oh, jolly good. Weeping statues. Now we're really on a roll. It is no surprise that Marian apparitions tend to coincide with cultures that believe in them.

Oh, I see. The nuns were busy in the basement assembling clever contraptions because they wanted a reason to dedicate their entire lives to Jesus, so why not lie about it? And let’s make it weep 101 times as the one in Akita Japan to really make a show, even though that will take us countless endeavors and increase the risk of being found out. Simple answer: God performed a miracle to bolster the faith of the believer and challenge the doubters.


Quote:
And those exorcisms. How on earth did they get the young child to levitate or to speak Latin, or to tell witnesses in the room things of their past the child could never have known?

Levitation? Really? Show me the evidence that a child levitated and spoke Latin. I'm sorry, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. .

How many does it take before one believes? How many eye witnesses are always called liars when their accounts do not line up with what the skeptic wants to hear? Well here is the latest one I can recall.

Link >> Vatican-trained exorcist shares true tales of his craft | Deseret News

If you want to read a much more thorough and documented recent case given by a psychiatrist (yes he is Catholic) read this famous one. I can not accept the whole world is full of liars and predisposition just does not cut it for me. The atheists at Fatima were not predisposed.

Link >> A case of demonic possession


In summation. I believe in God. It's the people who are charlatans.

I believe in both, and so much more. But the latter hardly disproves the former.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

[...] How does Josephus know what a jesus looked like when he was not born until 3 to 4 years after the death of this jesus.

Josephus wrote of many men whose lives (and deaths) preceded his birth. That's what historians do, CS.

No kidding...............then show me where Josephus wrote what a frigging jesus looked like when jesus was not even around during Josephus time.

Enough. peach already acknowledged that he was mistaken about Josephus. When you strike oil, stop drilling. Otherwise it just becomes antagonism.

As for Josephus, he is problematic as a piece of the Biblical historicity puzzle in general, not just when it comes to Jesus. The assumption that Josephus' accounts of Jesus are historically accurate assumes that Josephus was historically accurate in general. He was an historian, and therefore prone to the same issue that plagues most historians: bias.

For example, King Herod. Josephus' accounts of King Herod (Agrippa I) follow closely with the Talmud in portraying him very positively, a kindly and tolerant ruler, far less harsh than his predecessors, and whose reign was seen as largely positive. This is in stark contrast to the Biblical narratives which portray Herod as cruel and heartless, persecuted the Jerusalem church, killed one Apostle and imprisoned another, and was struck down by and angel of the Lord and eaten by worms. Josephus' historical view of King Herod and the Biblical narratives are almost night and day. Christian theists will theorize and say that Herod's reverence of Judaism would naturally make him an enemy of Jesus, and so that would explain the disparity, but they have to claim that in order to preserve their reverence of the NT.

My point is, if the Biblical Portrayal of Herod is the truth, as all of God’s word must be, then Josephus’ portrayal is therefore not the truth. If Christians would dismiss Josephus’ material regarding Herod, why then would they accept his material regarding Jesus? The answer is simple. There is so little non-Biblical evidence of the historicity of Jesus that every bit of it is extremely precious.

I am not offering foregone conclusions here. I’m simply saying that theist historians have a very limited range of tolerance when it comes to historical information. Cherry-picking is the name of the game.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Quote:
I assume then that these Romans somehow invented the miracle at Fatima where 70,000 people witnessed the sun dance and charge the earth, predicted 90 days in advance by three young children?

No. That was the miracle of staring at the sun for prolonged periods of time.

This is hardly a scholarly or researched answer. The facts of this event are legion. The newspaper accounts from a Marxist anti-clerical Lisbon newspaper is hardly the source that would lie to make themselves look the hoodwinked party.

You want to read one testimony from a scientis present there? Here it is. It is clinical and not from some predisposed devotee. .

Link >> Essentials: The Facts: The Miracle of the Sun


Quote:
I assume they somehow staged the Virgin Mary on top of a Coptic cathedral in Zeitoun, Egypt where more than a quarter of a million Egyptians saw her for themselves over the course of about 20 evenings in the summer of 1968?

Maybe I'm just a Godless Heathen (actually, I do believe in God), but I've never taken mass Marion apparition claims very seriously.

Well the New York Times did. They ran two lengthy articles on this phenomon in May and August of 1968. 200,000 people don’t all claim to see the same thing on many different nights no less.


Quote:
I assume they arranged for St. Anthony of Padua when his body was exhumed hundreds of years later for everything to be disintegrated except for his tongue which remained incorruptible, not to mention scores of other saints whose bodies lay incorruptible?

It was thirty years, not hundreds of years, but let's not let factual information get in the way of a good miracle story. I'm not saying something unusual or profound didn't happen, but in this single case where thirty years gets reported as hundreds of years, while you may say that is an insignificant slip-up, I see as an illuminating example of how easily stories get distorted into more than they are.

Let’s not let that detail confound anyone. I did not bother looking up the years and just guessed from memory, but I give you real credit for doing so yourself. There are so many incorruptible accounts of saints that I did not see any reason to spend a lot of time detailing them all. Would it matter if I did?


Quote:
I assume they worked on St. Padre Pio’s hands and feet every day or week to keep the ruse going about the bleeding stigmata he had to deal with every day of his life.

Please. There is plenty of controversy surrounding Pio's claims. But let's not include the accounts of doctors that refute the claims. No, let's only include those that support it. Typical.

There are skeptics for all claims of the supernatural. So? In almost all cases their alternative suggestions as to what may have occurred are hyper-improbable. Padre Pio has a list hundreds of names long of miracles that affected individuals including reading their hearts in confession, being present two places at the same time, countless divine healings and a stigmata which he bore for 50 years. The stigmata only stopped within weeks of his death and when he died there were no signs of any scars whatsoever. It is unthinkable a man as holy as this man would lie and deceive the people and his God.


Quote:
I suppose your Romans were busy assembling statues of Jesus and Mary that kept weeping human tears or tears of blood which no one can explain to this day?

Oh, jolly good. Weeping statues. Now we're really on a roll. It is no surprise that Marian apparitions tend to coincide with cultures that believe in them.

Oh, I see. The nuns were busy in the basement assembling clever contraptions because they wanted a reason to dedicate their entire lives to Jesus, so why not lie about it? And let’s make it weep 101 times as the one in Akita Japan to really make a show, even though that will take us countless endeavors and increase the risk of being found out. Simple answer: God performed a miracle to bolster the faith of the believer and challenge the doubters.


Quote:
And those exorcisms. How on earth did they get the young child to levitate or to speak Latin, or to tell witnesses in the room things of their past the child could never have known?

Levitation? Really? Show me the evidence that a child levitated and spoke Latin. I'm sorry, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. .

How many does it take before one believes? How many eye witnesses are always called liars when their accounts do not line up with what the skeptic wants to hear? Well here is the latest one I can recall.

Link >> Vatican-trained exorcist shares true tales of his craft | Deseret News

If you want to read a much more thorough and documented recent case given by a psychiatrist (yes he is Catholic) read this famous one. I can not accept the whole world is full of liars and predisposition just does not cut it for me. The atheists at Fatima were not predisposed.

Link >> A case of demonic possession


In summation. I believe in God. It's the people who are charlatans.

I believe in both, and so much more. But the latter hardly disproves the former.

I am skeptical. I admit it. I am skeptical of ALL supernatural claims. If I witness a supernatural event (which I never have), then I am sure I will be moved. Until then, I demand extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims.

Yes, I absolutely believe Pio could have been being deceptive. Was he diabolically setting out to dupe the world? Probably not, but what I know about Pio (and I am not claiming to be an expert), his behavior fits nicely into the grandiose delusions common among the psychotic.

There is absolutely an importance to the distortion of a detail like the number of years after a saint was exhumed, whether you intended the distortion or not. The fervor with which theists and atheists argue over the dating of the Gospels to support their respective agendas should illustrate that well enough. It is clear that I am inclined to lend weight to critical interpretations of these events while it is clear that you are inclined to accept it based upon faith. The glistening tongue of St. Anthony is a legendary narrative, not an historic fact. It is hundreds of years later now, and the tongue on display in Italy, while well-preserved, is neither glistening nor lifelike.

At no point did I say that nuns were perpetuating hoaxes. Nor did I say that all such events are necessarily hoaxes. What I am saying is that I fully believe at least most of them are. There have been and are master illusionists have have pulled off illusions far greater than these weeping statues, and in confounding ways. Does the vanishing of the Statue of Liberty by David Copperfield ring a bell? Your faith compels you to accept these weeping statues as supernatural phenomena. I get it.

Eye witnesses to demonic possessions? I WAS one, and I found out it was a complete lie. Does that mean that others are not genuine? I'm not saying that. But the ease with which 50+ people were duped into believing a demonic possession took place is not something I can easily shake.

 

[turzovka]

Ok. You seem to form your opinions based on personal experiences and a very skeptical position that demands greater proof than I or hardly anyone can provide. I am fine with that.

What I give you is what I believe and why. No, I do not expect you to believe it because I do. We all live with our decisions. Thanks for taking the time and we shall see where our paths may cross again.

 

[turzovka]

Well I am pleased you did not become indignant with me because I sort of accused you of this and that. The truth is I am only challenging you or whomever and how one responds tells me something. I like to be accused as well I might add.


Quote: So that is why you are here. Not to learn anything or ask questions, but to mock believers because it provides you with some sordid pleasure or satisfaction? ...

Truth be told: I get very little pleasure from dealing with brainwashed people, perceived mockery notwithstanding.

Brainwashed is quite a charge. You’re sure we’re all brainwashed?

Contrary to your insinuation, I really am "here" (in a broader sense than I think you intended) to learn about and question as many aspects of reality as I perceive it. I've done my time in the Faith (23 years) and the performance of my due diligence has led me to the place you've found me today. Don't assume for a second that my attitude towards Christianity has its basis in anything other than a rigorous examination that had its start on the inside. I've cried out to your god with the sincerity of an adolescent believer ...as well as with the disquieting fear of a young adult facing the prospect of eternal torment for the doubts over which I had no control.

Well now I am curious which denomination gave you a strong indication you would suffer in hell because of your doubts? Or was it because of other flaws or sins? I can assure you the Catholic faith does not teach that. They do not say any man would be in hell because of X or Y.

So was it the formal teachings of a faith that judged you unworthy or was it a number of individuals that you encountered? Surely the latter holds even less validity than the former. But even the former can be in grave error. I do not buy any Protestant theology when it comes to heaven and hell. I dare say the devil has his way by sowing discord among the brethren and causing great division.


Quote: Spare me the science attacks, that is as tiresome as it gets. The Catholic Church advanced science and learning and everything related far, far more than all its barbaric secular counterparts for more centuries than one can remember. But if the Church erred once or twice, well leave it to the haters of God to use that as evidence we were always against science. It’s a joke and you know it.

It's good to see "the science attacks" have become so commonplace as to evoke such tiresome feelings from people like you -- there was a time in which attacking the Church would have resulted in a torturous death, after all -- but the charge that secular barbarians failed to further science is not quite analogous to the overt suppression of any enquiry (scientific, philosophical, or otherwise) that might have called into question the authority of the Church or the veracity of any of its teachings.

It is not because our so-called opposition to science has been attacked on so many fronts it has become tiresome for me, it is because they keep referring to Galileo and maybe one other episode and try to make it look like it is this perpetual pattern of abuse and false beliefs that becomes tiresome. Catholicism has been the guardian of scholarship through the dark ages and the advancement of it via a thousand science minded clergy, the charge is spurious albeit highly useful for the opposition.

The Catholic Church has been so maligned in history it is veritably irreversible. The Inquisition highly overblown and lied about. The witch burnings, forget it. The Church sponsored none of that, it was the locals, secular as much as religious who bore the guilt and the paranoia. The Crusades were justified in their mission, the fact the soldiers created great sin thousands of miles away over centuries of occupation is of a whole different nature. By and large, the Church has been charitable, benign, sacrificial and most giving in its care for strangers. It has advanced man via education, hospitals, good governance, and civilized a barbaric world. To suggest the world would have profited greatly without the Christian influence is quite a leap of faith. To hold middle age punishments and governing to 20th century standards is to implicate the entire world of barbarism. I just cannot accept all these charges from civilized man looking back a thousand years.


Quote: You admit you do not know God, you admit that no evidence exists for Him that you will accept, but just the same you admit how much you despise Him and those who love Him.

Not quite true. Along with admitting to the hope that your god exists, so I can reject "HIM" to his face prior to being banished to the outer darkness, the pit, the lake, or whatever (depending on one's view of the afterlife), comes the implied concession of a potential scenario in which I'd recognize "HIS" existence.

Maybe it is his gift of forgiveness for the most guilty and evil of criminal minds that causes you indignation every bit as much as the fact some may not ask for it and pay a heavy price? Or are you keen about his great mercy but resent him for not letting everyone enter his kingdom no matter how selfish and ungrateful they may be?

Assuming you acknowledge the God of the Bible exists, you still despise Him for His ways? Why? It must be the hell question? If not, it is the temporal suffering all around you refuse to accept He allows. The hell question can never be answered by mortal man, but I do not let it bother me at all. I have been given more than enough evidence and promise from God and I am grateful for what He promises. I try to be humble about this. The suffering is merely a part of the trial we all go through. How much more would you love a beautiful bride who chose to love you and want to be with you than one who was forced to be your bride? Apparently we share that same attribute with God. A little faith, a little gratitude, a little humility and a lot of sacrifice while on earth and that is all God asks. An eternal heaven is quite a return, not to mention being with those dear to us forever.


But what I despise, apart from the god of the Bible (if and only if "HE" exists), is any organized corpus of beliefs based on placing such a hypothetical being on a pedestal.

I think I just spoke to that above. God does not need our worship for His sake. He asks for so little but for our own sake. Humility and faith are the keys. And there are a myriad of undeniable miracles over the centuries which validate His existence. I can not turn my back on this truth and think I am smarter and kinder than God.

Yes, it's possible to despise the doctrine without despising the indoctrinated!

I guess I believe you.

Problem is: 'Christian values' (and I don't mean the term in a positive way) have so inundated the society and political landscape in which I live ...they're barely noticeable as the root of many of my country's problems. In other words, the agendas carried forward on the backs of the flock (over the last 50 or so years in particular) have made it my business as an informed adult to denounce the Faith at large at every opportunity.

Well this makes no sense to me. Christianity has been a paragon of virtue and salvation for this nation and for Europe too until they decided to go wanton on us. Is it the Christian who lives a hedonistic wanton life or is it the secular humanist? And is this pleasure seeking materialistic way good for society or do you see a lot of people suffering because of man’s greed? Who is caring for the needy voluntarily around the world? Is it the agnostic or the believer? Why is this so easily dismissed? Jesus said you will know them by their fruits, I see the fruits and sacrifices of many Christians. Just because the world and the media can parade out a host of religious hypocrites does not prove their case. It only proves man is weak and sins despite the willingness of his spirit. But overall, the fruits of this faith have been remarkable and the world has been blessed as a result, not to mention defended with the blood of Christian nations. If anyone dares say our opposition to gay marriage makes us evil well they are not being honest with history or with themselves. Life, death and eternity are far more involved than a few current mores.


Aiming at the foundation of the house of cards via the study and explication of Christianity's fraudulent origin ...just seems the most efficient way to get it to tumble.

Fraudulent origin? You mean the blood of the martyrs and the peacefulness of its growth and witness (unlike islam) makes for a fraudulent origin?

__________________

 

[Capstone]

Well I am pleased you did not become indignant with me because I sort of accused you of this and that. The truth is I am only challenging you or whomever and how one responds tells me something. I like to be accused as well I might add. ...

I recognize the game, and this will be the last time I respond in this thread with my focus on anything other than the topic proposed in the OP. As infinite in number as the peripheral issues may seem, I sincerely want to get the discussion back on track and to do my best to see that it stays there.

[...]Brainwashed is quite a charge. You’re sure we’re all brainwashed? ...

No, I'm convinced that a relative few are clear-minded and manipulative enough to know exactly how to exploit the machinations of your Faith to their respective benefits (monetarily, politically and otherwise).

Well now I am curious which denomination gave you a strong indication you would suffer in hell because of your doubts? Or was it because of other flaws or sins? ...

I came up in an especially charismatic Protestant denomination (Oneness Pentecostalism), complete with holy-rollers, tongue-speakers, inspired interpreters and faith healers -- not your run-of-the-mill stuff to be sure. I have the memories of the usual rifts of several people who "spoke in other tongues" on a regular basis seared into my mind to this very day. I can prattle them off as easily as I used to pledge allegiance to the flag in primary school.

But yes, in concert with the worrisome implications of my growing skepticism during the mid-to-late teenage years, there was also the very Christian-like undercurrent of guilt associated with some of the activities and endeavors of any horny young man. How on Earth could god ever forgive me for positioning myself for the best possible view up the organist's skirt?!

[...] I can assure you the Catholic faith does not teach that. They do not say any man would be in hell because of X or Y.

Ahem, "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1035) [emphasis mine].

Who needs X or Y, when the phrase "those who die in mortal sin" is broad enough to cover A through Z?

[...]So was it the formal teachings of a faith that judged you unworthy or was it a number of individuals that you encountered? ...

Surely those options aren't mutually exclusive...

[...] the latter holds even less validity than the former. But even the former can be in grave error. I do not buy any Protestant theology when it comes to heaven and hell. I dare say the devil has his way by sowing discord among the brethren and causing great division.

Which kinda makes me wonder why your god hasn't come out of hiding to clarify things in a such a way that would erase any doubt as to the proper path to follow.

Spare me the business on the importance of faith. Of course I realize how important the doctrine of faith is to any set of beliefs with nothing stronger at its core.

[...] Catholicism has been the guardian of scholarship through the dark ages and the advancement of it via a thousand science minded clergy,[...]

Catholicism has consistently been the guardian of Catholicism against any scholarship that might have been remotely construed as a challenge to its authority and teachings. The phrase "science minded clergy" is an oxymoron, since science by its very definition strives to erase as many preconceived notions and biases as possible.

[...]The Catholic Church has been so maligned in history it is veritably irreversible. The Inquisition highly overblown and lied about. The witch burnings, forget it. The Church sponsored none of that, it was the locals, secular as much as religious who bore the guilt and the paranoia. The Crusades were justified in their mission, the fact the soldiers created great sin thousands of miles away over centuries of occupation is of a whole different nature. ...

I'm sorry, but I'm done with you. I don't have the time, energy, or inclination to shuffle through the Bulls and the other bullshit of your Faith to prove a point. I've been down that road a time or two before with people like you, and trust me, there will never be a meeting of the minds between us -- not even if one day I see your face in the crowd on Judgement Day.

Feel free to respond (or not) as you wish. For my part, I'm leaving it here.

 

[turzovka]

I very much buy into your sincerity.

I very much appreciate the fact that even though you are willing to debate or contest a number of theological or historical claims the amount of time and effort to do so is too much and hence not warranted.

I stand in total opposition to a number of your claims or refutations, but am up against the same trouble you have --- i.e. is it worth all of my time needed to make my point?

So we will simply have to let some things pass and proceed in our own ways, both convinced we hold some great truths in our own beliefs. I am very grateful for what has been revealed to me.

"‘Tis a shorter thing and sooner done to write heresies than to answer them.” St. Thomas More

 

[Capstone]

An interview with Atwill on Red Ice Radio from February of last year:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuqwmMpV2oo]Red Ice Radio - Joseph Atwill - Hour 1 - Caesar's Messiah, The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus - YouTube[/ame]

Lengthy, but worth it.​